In a radio interview he also said that he wouldn’t vote to repeal Obamacare until the GOP had a replacement. Well, the GOP has had how many years to develop a plan? And, what were all of those symbolic votes against Obamacare that the GOP has said that they have had?

How does the money of Soros compare with the money of Stayer? Does it matter that the future Sen/Gov from CA focuses his money totally on environmental politics while Soros focuses his money mostly on currency manipulation?

Does it matter that Obama pushes policies to support Buffet’s big gamble on BNSF even though Buffet gives to leftist charities that have little immediate political impact?

The House on Friday passed a bill to approve construction of the Keystone XL pipeline hours after a Nebraska court ruled in favor of the proposed route. The legislation now goes to the Senate, where it is expected to be approves. The White House has warned President Obama would veto the legislation. Passage fell largely along party lines, 266-153, with 28 Democrats joining nearly all Republicans in favor. Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) voted "present." That is short of the necessary two-thirds majority needed to override a veto. [House Approves Keystone XL Pipeline]

...legislation sponsored by Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) which approved construction of the long-delayed Keystone XL Pipeline... 31 Democratic representatives voted with every Republican member of Congress save Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), who voted present, to approve construction of the pipeline. [31 House Democrats join GOP in vote to approve Keystone]

Thanks for the link to Michael O’Brien’s book. It is going on my “must read” list. I am interested in the trilogy, thanks to your post.

Wish I could convince my adult children that the “carnival” will end, and the rides will come to a grinding halt. But, they are mesmerized, corporatized, and running on the hamster wheel of progress.

I am now a “generation past” in their eyes, which roll whenever I mention 18 trillion dollar deficits, and unfunded debts of over 100 trillion - beyond imagination. I have learned not to mention the quadrillion in derivatives, hedge funds, or any of that “icky” stuff they are too busy to consider.

Feeling a bit discouraged tonight, and wondering how long “TPTB” can keep all the plates spinning in the air?

a little-known but highly influential assemblage of three billionaires and sixty millionaires, The Democracy Alliance.

Ostensibly concerned with attempts of Democrat Party outsiders to wrest control from the party old-guard using netroots, powerful new means of fund-raising & connectivity centering around the internet, the author of The Argument ends up admitting that, by the 2006 mid-term elections, despite the influx of new blood, the Democrat Party was as far as ever from convincing votersor itselfthat it has any ideas or programs that make it superior to, or different from, the Republicans.

Of special interest in The Argument is a PowerPoint® presentation nicknamed "The Killer Slideshow", formally titled The Conservative Message Machine's Money Matrix. Compiled over a period of about a decade by a leftist policy wonk, Clinton administration treasury official Rob Stein, the 2004 presentation used charts, diagrams and other graphic aids to detail the rise of the conservative foundation movement between the defeat of Barry Goldwater by President Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1964, and Ronald Reagan's 1976 Republican primary challenge to President Gerald R. Ford.

The Killer Slideshowno one was allowed to view it without signing a non-divulgence agreementtook as its starting point the August, 1971 memorandum from future Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., to Eugene B. Sydnor, Jr., Chairman, Education Committee, U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Titled "Attack on the American Free Enterprise System", the confidential memorandum was held to be the original inspiration for the system of conservative foundations, considered by Democrat Party operatives in The Argument to have locked down Republican Party domination of the Presidency for nearly thirty years between Carter and Obama, only interrupted by Clinton.

The presentation's point was to exhort leftist donors into replicating the Republicans' long-term, Presidential electoral success. (Regardless of the slideshow's ultimate effect, it is worthy of note that the Obamanistas project a forty-year reign, longer than that of the Democrats during the Depression period 1933-1954. Democrat campaign strategist James Carville has argued quite persuasively that the political statistics make Democrat domination of the Presidency, the most likely outcome of the current economic and political struggles.)

If we didn't just have an election where the majority of people voted for a more conservative congress, I might be discouraged by this article. But, I believe in the goodness of the American people and I don't think they like the current events any more than we do.

It's time to stop puting the majority of Americans in an unfavorable light and start believing that we will get rid of these radicals soon. I believe it is going to take a great deal of effort to hold our newly elected officials accountable. We have to burn up the phone lines, text and email until our fingers get sore.

If something is worth fighting for, fight for it. I plan to take my own advice and communicate my feelings.

I vote we utilize our massive stockpiles of ammo and keep these savages penned in their self-made urban hovels until they exterminate each other. I ain’t one for walking away from my birthright and my life’s hard work like some fugging coward.

In this fast-paced, reflective novel, (the second in a trilogy following Strangers and Sojourners) Michael O'Brien presents the dramatic tale of a family that finds itself in the path of a totalitarian government. Set in the near future, the story describes the rise of a police state in North America in which every level of society is infected with propaganda, confusion and disinformation. Few people are equipped to recognize what is happening because the culture of the Western world has been deformed by a widespread undermining of moral absolutes.

Against this background, the Delaney family of Swiftcreek, British Columbia, is struck a severe blow when the father of the family, the editor of a small newspaper which dares to speak the truth, is arrested by the dreaded Office of Internal Security. His older children flee into the forest of the northern interior, accompanied by their great-grandfather and an elderly priest, Father Andrei. Their little brother Arrow also becomes a fugitive as the government seeks to remove any witnesses, and eradicate all evidence of its ultimate goals.

As O'Brien draws together the several strands of the story into a frightening yet moving climax, he explores the heart of growing darkness in North America, examining events which have already occurred. The reader will take away from this disturbing book a number of urgent questions: Are we living in the decisive moment of history? How dire is our situation? Do we live in pessimistic dread, or a Christian realism founded on hope? This is a tale about the victory of the weak over the powerful, courage over terror, good over evil, and, above all, the triumph of love.

Over the last few days, one of the things that I have noticed were the OWS people (predominately rich white 18 - 30 year olds) in all the marches. It seems pretty obvious that the OWS crowd didn’t go away but changed their venue. Also notice that all of the marches have the contingents that shout down with capitalism, social justice, economic justice and all the other communist drivel.

Ochlocracy (Greek: ὀχλοκρατία, okhlokratía; Latin: ochlocratia) or mob rule is the rule of government by mob or a mass of people, or the intimidation of legitimate authorities. As a pejorative for majoritarianism, it is akin to the Latin phrase mobile vulgus meaning "the fickle crowd", from which the English term "mob" was originally derived in the 1680s.

Ochlocracy ("rule of the general populace") is democracy ("rule of the people") spoiled by demagoguery, "tyranny of the majority", and the rule of passion over reason, just as oligarchy ("rule of a few") is aristocracy ("rule of the best") spoiled by corruption, and tyranny is monarchy spoiled by lack of virtue. Ochlocracy is synonymous in meaning and usage to the modern, informal term "mobocracy", which emerged from a much more recent colloquial etymology.

Terminology

Polybius

The term appears to have been coined by Polybius in his Histories (6.4.6). He uses it to name the "pathological" version of popular rule in opposition to the good version, which he refers to as democracy. There are numerous mentions of the word "ochlos" in the Talmud (where "ochlos" refers to anything from "mob", "populace", to "armed guard"), as well as in Rashi, a Jewish commentary on the Bible. The word is recorded in English since 1584, derived from the French ochlocratie (1568), which stems from the original Greek okhlokratia, from okhlos ("mob") and kratos (meaning "rule, power, strength").

In ancient Greek political thought ochlocracy was considered as one of the three "bad" forms of government (tyranny, oligarchy and ochlocracy) as opposed to the three "good" forms of government (monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy). The distinction between "good" and "bad" was made according to whether the government form would act in the interest of the whole community ("good") or the exclusive interests of a group or individual at the expense of justice ("bad").

This (Polybian) terminology for forms of state in ancient Greek philosophy has become customary. It should be noted, though, that Aristotle terms democracy as polity (sometimes translated as republic, which confusingly is used by other Aristotle-translators for aristocracy, instead) while giving the name of democracy to ochlocracy.

An ochlocrat is one who is an advocate or partisan of ochlocracy. It can also be used as an adjective (ochlocratic or ochlocratical).

The threat of "mob rule" to a democracy is restrained by ensuring that the rule of law protects minorities or individuals against short-term demagoguery or moral panic. Though considering how laws in a democracy are established or repealed by the majority, the rule of law's protection of minorities is questionable.

Ochlocracy versus anarchism

Anarchism, meaning "without government", is a term covering various anti-authoritarian philosophies and movements, generally viewing themselves as socialist, which are dedicated to the replacement of states and/or governments (either capitalist governments or all governments) by various suggested alternatives such as autonomous self-realizing democratic structures. Anarchists reject the criticism that anarchism is inherently ochlocratic as a mischaracterization of anarchism, arguing that it includes theories of structure and mutual support rooted in democracy and free association.

Mobs in history

Historians often comment on mob rule as a factor in the rise of Rome and its maintenance, as the city of Rome itself was largebetween 100,000 and 250,000 citizenswhile the aristocracy and even military was very small by comparison to the citizenry. Lapses in this control often led to loss of official power (and often enough, the heads of the officials themselves)most notably in the reign of Commodus when Cleander unwisely used the Praetorian Guard against a mob which had come to call for his head. As historian Edward Gibbon relates it:

The people...demanded with angry clamors the head of the public enemy. Cleander, who commanded the Praetorian Guards, ordered a body of cavalry to sally forth and disperse the seditious multitude. The multitude fled with precipitation towards the city; several were slain, and many more were trampled to death; but when the cavalry entered the streets their pursuit was checked by a shower of stones and darts from the roofs and windows of the houses. The footguards, who had long been jealous of the prerogatives and insolence of the Praetorian cavalry, embraced the party of the people. The tumult became a regular engagement and threatened a general massacre. The Praetorians at length gave way, oppressed with numbers; and the tide of popular fury returned with redoubled violence against the gates of the palace, where Commodus lay dissolved in luxury, and alone unconscious of the civil war...Commodus started from his dream of pleasure and commanded that the head of Cleander should be thrown out to the people. The desired spectacle instantly appeased the tumult...

This followed a previous incident in which the legions of Britain had demanded and received the death of Perennis, the prior administrator. The mob thus realized that it had every chance of success.

The Salem Witch Trials, in which the unified belief of the townspeople overpowered the logic of the law, has also been cited as an example of mob rule. In 1837 Abraham Lincoln wrote about lynching and "the increasing disregard for law which pervades the countrythe growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions in lieu of the sober judgment of courts, and the worse than savage mobs for the executive ministers of justice".

Mobs used to affect policy

The modern theories of civil disobedience and satyagraha can be differentiated from "mob rule" and its mechanics, as these approaches forego the use of violence and force that the mob of ancient times employed.

Traditional non-violent protest theory holds that if the demonstrators are restrained and do not do any violence, yet refuse to back down, then they could conceivably win, as they either will be joined by the forces they face, be allowed to defy the law or government openly and peacefully, or be physically attacked, struck down, and made into powerful moral symbols of the lengths to which the agents of the state will go to enforce its laws. However, police forces around the world have become adept at making such gatherings irrelevant by limiting them to areas, in some cases dubbed "free speech zones", sufficiently separate from the object of their discontent, the rest of the public, and the media, to make them easily ignored. Permitting requirements in many jurisdictions effectively make demonstrations without advance police permission illegal. Various efforts to increase demonstrators' communal intelligence and mobility using cell phone networks and bicycles have been employed to circumvent crowd control and marginalizing techniques. Flash mobs and Critical Mass style "bike block" actions are examples experimented with, with mixed results, notably during the 2004 Republican National Convention.

Modern theory concludes that since Roman guards, facing crucifixion for disobedience, could be swayed by mobs, it is also possible to sway modern police, even in a police state.

That’s the test? If a Democrat can bail from the Obama train wreck without having been indicted, then she’s home-free?

That would pretty much be any criminal graduate, ‘08-’14, wouldn’t it—from Holder to Lerner to Clinton?
And that’s not counting all the senior executives who perjured themselves, or crimes not yet committed due to the complete lack of civil or criminal responsibility by Obamanites for their actions.

Jeb BUSH doesn’t have a snowball’s chance and it would be embarrassing and suicidal to run him. No Democrat will vote for him. Few Independents will vote for him. Even most Republicans won’t vote for him. ENOUGH BUSHES. ENOUGH ALREADY!

Civil forfeitures. At least in the other third world countries you can bribe the police. Here, the cops don’t even have to ask for the bribe; they can just take it.
Cops have to chose between supporting law abiding citizens and the and mafia government.

Hopefully your knowledge is better than mine, because so many conservatives are obsessed with law and order. They may bitch and groan about this or that issue, but the last thing they will do is civil disobedience. As far as cops go, each incident or accusation has to be individually scrutinized. The incident in NYC with Eric Garner, the fat dude selling loosie cigarettes was totally out of line. I saw video of arrest and bringing in tom the ground etc. The Ferguson debacle is a different. Michael Brown attacked the cop and went for his gun. Cop got his face pummeled by Brown in the police car. Gun went off, Brown was shot in arm. Brown came back,(was this dude screwed up on something?)apparently with hands extended. Now I would have to see videos again. But it seems that possibly officer who got pummeled feared he was going to go after him again—don’t know. Each incident is a separate incident. Can’t generalize. Where I will generalize is the militarization of police forces in general. They are cops, not Navy Seals. This is done not by the police forces themselves—but by Homeland Security throwing all this military hardware at them.

Calhoun was not a libertarian in the current sense; but he was a very observant and influential political theoretician. His best work was A Disquisition on Government. It argues that the best governments require the largest consent within the branches and levels of government, and gives historical examples illustrating his concept of concurrent majorities. This means the requirement of wide agreement before the government can act. Nullification was seen as just one sort of limit on rule by overweening majorities. One of Calhouns examples was Poland, in which for a time laws had to be approved unanimously by the legislature, which (he asserted) led to Polands most prosperous times, and built a habit of compromise and toleration of minority views.

I regard Calhouns concurrent majority principle as extremely valuable. As he pointed out, it is (or was) embodied in the U. S. Constitution by the requirement that laws must be approved by more than one branch of the government; and by the division of powers which formerly separated federal and states rights. The states Calhoun saw as having a right to dissent from laws which they judged were unconstitutional. The only other alternatives would be tyranny or war, both of which we have experienced.

Nullification infuriates ideologues, for it seems so messy. But the alternatives are despotism, or bloodshed. Which is preferable?

If a state were to dissent from the outrageous and clearly indefensible Roe v. Wade decision, who would actually be harmed?

Concurrent majorities is an excellent and practical freedom principle.

Of course, we are way beyond the point in our history where rights are actually observed by reference to the Constitution. State rights have been abolished by judicial interpretation, and new (previously unimaginable and bizarre) rights are almost daily propounded by ideologically motived judges. This is part of the progressive collapse of our civilization, and shows no sign of abatement.

The ultimate act of nullification would be secession, but that did not work out for the South. Now almost everyone accepts the idea that no people should ever be able to leave a country, except in most other parts of the world.

Stopping the behemoth of dictatorial government is perhaps no longer possible for our society. People accept tyranny because the think that peace requires it. But note that there is no such thing as a peaceful dictatorship. Dictatorships may be quiet, but not peaceful.